RE: Surface Combat Results

RE: Surface Combat Results (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

JocMeister -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/25/2014 7:33:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EHansen I think the part you are missing is that the old, slow BBs will do bad no mater what. The CAs without the old, slow BBs will perform better on their own. +1

LoBaron -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/25/2014 7:49:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alanschu If the combat were to happen in the day, would the results still be the same? (my gut says no, as Allies tend to have higher day xp than night xp, and the encounter would likely start at longer ranges) Probably not as distinct, but the balance might still tilt to the Japanese. I think every navy guy on this forum will confirm you that a ships´ speed is a deciding factor in a naval engagement. Speed is responsble for dictating the distance to the enemy battle formation, and allows the freedom to decide when and how to engage, and disengage. In addition to that a faster ship is more difficult to hit. All those factors apply equally in a daytime battle, but you are correct that there the exp delta is smaller, range is higher, and so total weight of fire and range of guns might get closer to outweight the speed component. Btw., EHansen is correct. This what I was suggesting. The negative effect a slow BB has on the main body cannot be compensated by the benefits of a larger main body and the added firepower. Do not forget that in game a TF is a tactical formation in most cases. Assuming the total number of ships is the same, 2 TFs in the same hex instead of 1 is still a local concentration of force.

wdolson -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/25/2014 7:51:11 AM)
If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember. I thought of writing a mini-AAR about what happened next. I didn't move the Colorado for about 2 months as I repaired all the damage I could at PM. Then I slowly moved her from port to port back to Pearl. I think it took something like another 2 months to get her back. Between ports she tended to spring leaks and needed time to fix them in the next port. The leg from Pago Pago to Pearl she almost sank. I think she had something like 95 flotation damage by the time she limped into Pearl and all the naval support there saved her. Then she spent another year in dry dock. It probably would have been more prudent to scuttle her, but she did stop the bombardment of PM. I think the AI quit the bombardments after that too. Sometimes the strategic sacrifice of an old BB might be worth it. Though they are far better suited to shore bombardment most of the time. Bill

alanschu -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/25/2014 8:07:37 AM)
I imagine there are thresholds? I mean, destroyers are the fastest, but will their 4 or 5 inch guns be able to do much against not much slower cruisers, or even slower battleships? (I imagine if they could close the distance, the torpedoes will really help). Does task force speed provide an innate defense against all ships in an air attack as well? I don't typically put sub 30 knot ships with carriers to begin with, but while I was moving a fleet of warships to Sydney I kept them all in the same task force "just because." Though I also figure "I'd rather those big BB's take the hit instead of the aircraft carrier," if possible. Wasn't it I think... the Brooklyn class that was still quite effective at cannonade simply due to the sheer amount of shells it could put into the air because of gun quantity and ROF? I remember playing an older game, Distant Guns, and it was interesting because even with some CAs that pretty much couldn't penetrate the armor of heavier ships, if I could still swarm a dreadnought I could disable some of the weapons and eventually cause so many fires that the ship effectively became a smoldering husk with damage control unable to maintain the fire. I never really knew how much that reflected reality, however (and it was a risky maneuver because any of those primary batteries would mess me up pretty good if they scored a hit).

wdolson -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/25/2014 8:27:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Btw., EHansen is correct. This what I was suggesting. The negative effect a slow BB has on the main body cannot be compensated by the benefits of a larger main body and the added firepower. Do not forget that in game a TF is a tactical formation in most cases. Assuming the total number of ships is the same, 2 TFs in the same hex instead of 1 is still a local concentration of force. This is not unprecedented. Olendorf split up his force into multiple layers at Surigao Strait. The Japanese faced different waves of ever larger ships as they went up the channel. This was one of the few times the US had the forces to split them up like that, but the results were very effective. Bill

Joe D. -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/25/2014 12:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Btw., EHansen is correct. This what I was suggesting. The negative effect a slow BB has on the main body cannot be compensated by the benefits of a larger main body and the added firepower. Do not forget that in game a TF is a tactical formation in most cases. Assuming the total number of ships is the same, 2 TFs in the same hex instead of 1 is still a local concentration of force. This is not unprecedented. Olendorf split up his force into multiple layers at Surigao Strait. The Japanese faced different waves of ever larger ships as they went up the channel. This was one of the few times the US had the forces to split them up like that, but the results were very effective ... It was so effective that John Wayne did it too, but during broad daylight and "In Harm's Way" [;)]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/25/2014 3:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember. The IJN CAs are such amazing ships, and they get so few of them, that I often will consider sacrificing an old BB , or severely damaging one as here, to be good trade. The CAs are very versatile in the areas of reload sites and fuel consumption versus the also-good IJN BBs. I have also given up several pre-war USN DDs in a single battle to achieve a mission-kill on a CA in the first half of 1942. Putting a CA in the yards for four months (plus transit) is extremely worthwhile. Time is the resource. When they emerge repaired it's to a different Allied OOB. Never discount the value of a mission-kill.

Lokasenna -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/26/2014 4:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember. The IJN CAs are such amazing ships, and they get so few of them, that I often will consider sacrificing an old BB , or severely damaging one as here, to be good trade. The CAs are very versatile in the areas of reload sites and fuel consumption versus the also-good IJN BBs. I have also given up several pre-war USN DDs in a single battle to achieve a mission-kill on a CA in the first half of 1942. Putting a CA in the yards for four months (plus transit) is extremely worthwhile. Time is the resource. When they emerge repaired it's to a different Allied OOB. Never discount the value of a mission-kill. FWIW, a full speed run did more float damage to one of my CAs than those DDs did [;)].

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/26/2014 4:43:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember. The IJN CAs are such amazing ships, and they get so few of them, that I often will consider sacrificing an old BB , or severely damaging one as here, to be good trade. The CAs are very versatile in the areas of reload sites and fuel consumption versus the also-good IJN BBs. I have also given up several pre-war USN DDs in a single battle to achieve a mission-kill on a CA in the first half of 1942. Putting a CA in the yards for four months (plus transit) is extremely worthwhile. Time is the resource. When they emerge repaired it's to a different Allied OOB. Never discount the value of a mission-kill. FWIW, a full speed run did more float damage to one of my CAs than those DDs did [;)]. I'm playing two games. [:)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/27/2014 2:22:39 AM)
Sadly, surface combat is in my opinion the most whitewashed aspect of the game, more so since naval combat is such a major element to any naval war game. Really needed a thorough revamp but was always overlooked by overkill time spent on lesser areas. Down to individual pilots and training for example but ships don't have crew factors...line of battle model circa 1805... simplistic formations, etc.[8\|]

witpqs -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/27/2014 3:17:33 AM)
Calling it "whitewashed" is really insulting. [:(]

Lokasenna -> RE: Surface Combat Results (1/27/2014 3:40:21 AM)
I wouldn't call it whitewashed, but to me it is at times a little underwhelming. I think the model represents night combat decently well. Day combat...I'm not sure. I do wish there was more to a ship's experience than just Day/Night. For example, repairs or damage control - which XP value does it use? Is it averaged? Is there some hidden value? I wish there was a general 'seamanship expertise' value.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75